Posts Tagged ‘Rudy Giuliani’

Upcoming in The Nation:

The Republicans, led by George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani and their hard-core neoconservative hit squads, have spent millions on television messages supporting the military surge in Iraq. They mounted a major campaign to demonize MoveOn.org in order to derail the group’s proven ability to raise funds for antiwar messages and Democratic candidates. During the election year, pro-war Republicans are poised to promote staying the course in Iraq while threatening or even instigating a war on Iran. The Democrats will have to respond with more than an echo.But at this point the leading Democratic contenders are reluctant to say they would pull out all the troops from a war they claim to oppose. In sharp contrast to Republicans, Democrats at least support withdrawing most or all American combat troops on a twelve- to eighteen-month deadline. Asked for exact timelines, however, the top contenders indicate that they would put off the withdrawal of all troops until sometime in their second term. The platform of “out by 2013” may be a sufficient difference from the Republicans for some, but it won’t satisfy the most committed antiwar voters. Asked about the five-year estimate, Senator Hillary Clinton’s spokesman on Iraq policy, Philippe Reines, expressed surprise, but his formulation of her views did not conflict with the idea of a long US presence: that she wants substantial troop reductions starting immediately, without a deadline for completion, and with a smaller American force left behind dedicated to training Iraqis and counter-terrorism.

Read the rest and see his shout out to New Hampshire Peace Action and its dedicated bird dogs!


Read Full Post »

Question: UN Resolution 687 passed by the UN Security Council was fundamental in ending the First Gulf War. It requires a nuclear free zone in the Middle East. Do you support this Resolution and, if so, what steps will you take to ensure a nuclear free zone in the Middle East?

Answer: No. I would not support that.

Questioner: You would not support a nuclear free Middle East?

Answer: No. I think what we’ve got to do is stop Iran from becoming nuclear, but I’m not sure the UN is the right away to do that.

Read Full Post »

Question: unable to hear.

Answer: About Iraq and how to bring them home [meaning the military]? Victory and success is the way to bring them home.

The young men and women we have in Iraq and we have in Afghanistan, are keeping us safe. They are making a great sacrifice and their families are above and beyond what most people are asked to do. That’s the unfortunate part [of] defending freedom and democracy. But make no mistake about it, this is not for some useless purpose. This is for an enormously important purpose.

They are keeping us safe against Islamic terrorism by engaging it over there and dealing with it. Now, what is the objective in Iraq? What is the best outcome–what step beyond for a moment and say to ourselves “what would be the best outcome for America with regard to Iraq and what would be the worst outcome”. The best outcome for American would be for Iraq that was stable and would be an ally of the United States in the terrorist war against us. That would be the best outcome. Forget Democrats, Republicans, presidential candidates, just America. We’re all Americans. What’s the best outcome?

What’s the worst outcome in Iraq? The worst outcome in Iraq is if it were to become a haven–if it became a state sponsor of terrorism like Iran is. If it became an ally of Iran; that would be worst possible situation for us considering Iran wants to become a nuclear power. So that’s the best and that’s the worst.

Why do we have our military there? The military is there to get the best possible outcome for our country, the United States, which is a stable Iraq which acts as ally for us against the terrorist war against us. Why the Democrats want to pull them out prematurely; why the Democrats announced all the way back in July and August that we lost in Iraq. Harry Reid said “America lost in Iraq”. This was before any of the results from The Surge; this is before General Petraeus testified. Right before General Petraeus the third ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives said “if The Surge works, it’ll be bad for the democratic party.” Who cares? Who cares if it’s bad for the Democratic party? Who cares if it’s bad for the Republican party? Who cares if it’s bad for me or Hillary Clinton, or anybody else? All we care about is: what is the best possible result for our country in Iraq?

I said this before I knew what General Petraeus was going to say; [I] said it in June and July: lets listen to them more rather than the politicians. Back last January; December, January, and February, I spent some time meeting with the sailors, soldiers, and marines, different levels just to talk to them. So much in the media about this. So much in politics about this–I guess that’s true with any war, it has to be?–but I wanted to get their idea. And to a person what they told me was “we can be successful. Give us a chance. Give us a chance to be successful and don’t pull us out of here prematurely because you have some sort of presidential election going on. We can be successful, we can stabilize the place, and we can get to the point where they can be an ally for us, but it’s going to take some patience and it’s going to take some commitment, and it’s going to take some courage, something they [the soldiers] have in great abundance. The result in Iraq should be a stable Iraq that acts as an ally for us in the terrorist war against us, not a premature withdrawal.

And the last thing we should do is return to the very irresponsible things Democratic candidates did this summer. Some of the voted for giving the enemy a timetable for our retreat. Have you ever heard of anything more irresponsible in a time? Why, why–I don’t care what your position on Iraq. I don’t care if you’re for it, against it, or in doubt about it–why would you ever think that if you had to retreat, you would give the enemy your timetable for retreat? Doesn’t that mean politics trumps common sense in a situation like that? I mean, a retreating army should never be required to give a schedule of its retreat to its enemy, unless we’ve let political stuff get so confused in our heads that focusing on what’s in the best interest of our country becomes [inaudible].

I’m not questioning anybody’s patriotism. I don’t think it’s a question of patriotism. You think the Democrats care about the troops as much as we do. Democrats want a good result in Iraq as much as we do. I honestly think they do not properly appreciate the danger of the Islamic terrorist against us. It’s the reason they never use the words Islamic terrorist in their debates. They refuse to use those words. I think it’s more than just refusing to use the words; I think it’s more than bowing at the alter of political correctness. I think it comes from a basic misunderstanding of the danger we face. I don’t think our soldiers have that basic misunderstanding.

Question two: the Democrats seem to want to take money away from Pakistan as a way of–the Democrats the money away that we give to Pakistan which I think they use to support their military. What’s your thoughts on what’s happening in Pakistan and how we should go–[he was cut off by Giuliani].

Answer: My thought about what’s happening in Pakistan is it’s very delicate. It’s truly a very delicate situation. And it’s one that, those of us running for office should tread very, very lightly on we’re not sitting there making decisions. And having been a person who had to make very difficult decisions as mayor of New York City–and some of the people running have not had that experience. They’ve never run a city, they’ve never run a state, they’ve never run a government, they’ve never had the saftey and security of millions of people on their shoulders. They tend to just say things without thinking about it the position the President [Bush] is in. And I were to say this: if the President were President Bush or a Democratic president the objective in Pakistan is, first of all, to keep the government of Pakistan together.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. To make sure those nuclear weapons are in hands of someone seemingly responsible. And then, to sure Pakistan works with us in helping to route out and remove the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and also to help us find bin Laden–which I still think is an enormously important strategic objective. So we have to deal with this whole Musharraf thing from the point of view of moving them along toward democracy; moving them along to a fairer system of government; but at the same time not pushing buttons when we don’t know what will come out the other end.

So, I would give a lot of credence [?] here to what our government wants to do. I think this is an area where the President and the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, have a very delicate job they’re trying to achieve here and lets give them a little support. And lets give them the benefit of they know a little bit more about this situation than the Democrats running for president and the Republicans.

Read Full Post »

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said yesterday that the U.S. needs its nuclear arsenal to strengthen its position in negotiating with Iran. If Americans want to leverage a better result from talks with Iran, they must be willing to go to war, he said.

“I wouldn’t ever unilaterally disarm the United States,” he said in response to a question at Saint Anselm College in Manchester yesterday. “And I think I certainly wouldn’t do it right now in the face of the Islamic terrorists’ war against us, in the face of an Iran that wants to be nuclear.”

Read Full Post »